Eli Broad Wants to Buy Los Angeles Times (Again)

By Dennis Romero Thu., May 3 2012 at 6:00 AM

First Magic Johnson and Guggenheim Baseball purchase the Dodgers from the dreaded Frank McCourt.

Now local billionaire Eli Broad is once again teasing us with the possibility that he could buy the Los Angeles Times and kick its loathed ownership -- the Tribune Co. and its tard of a chairman, Sam Zell -- to the curb.

L.A. would be on quite a lucky streak:

In an interview this week with the Times Broad, who made much of his money from residential real estate development before becoming a philanthropist and noted art collector, indicates that he'll take a crack at the paper when Tribune Co. emerges from bankruptcy, likely this year.

He thinks Zell will put the publication up for sale. In his forthcoming book The Art of Being Unreasonable: Lessons in Unconventional Thinking, he writes:

Broad Foundation

Broad and wife Edythe.

This time around the price should be better and the advantages of local ownership clear to all.

The paper asked him about it, and Broad responded that he would like to "partner with others ... maybe foundations or wealthy families" to snap up the Times.

He tried that in 2007 and was beaten out by ... Zell.

Unfortunately, Zell had to borrow so much money to buy Tribune Co. that it has been drowning in his red ink and shedding journalists pretty much since the day Zell entered the picture.

Plus, he's a journalistic know-nothing tool who put know-nothing tools like Lee Abrams in positions of power at the company.

The Times went from having 1,500 editorial employees at its peak in the mid-1990s to 500 today.

But if the publication was to set sail on its own tomorrow, it would still be profitable -- and it would still be a journalistic treasure.

[@dennisjromero / djromero@laweekly.com / @LAWeeklyNews]

Tags:

Eli Broad, Los Angeles Times, media, Sam Zell, Tribune Co.

We Recommend

Maandrws213

The La Raza LAT sucks!

Concerned Angelino

Fairly sure the peak editorial strength of the LA Times was 1200, not 1500.

ScottZwartz

I suppose one could find someone worse to buy the LA Times than Eli "give me hundreds of millions more tax dollars so kids can never have a park" Broad, but other than Frank McCourt, no one comes to mind.

Is it really generous giving when you are actually buying community status by blasting your name across the top of some huge building? That type of "giving" doesn't even make it on to Maimonides eight levels of charity. It is nothing but grandiose hubris and self-adoration. Why doesn't Maimonides even recognize it as a form of righteous giving? Because it is a form of buying. Eli is merely buying himself more status which leads to more gelt.

Eli had his chance to help children by buying out the hideous over sized CRA mixed use project on the N /W corner of Hollywood and Garfield so that the area children could have a 1.1 ace park. Instead Eli chose to stuff $52 M of tax dollars into his pockets in the form of a parking lot for his art collection. The actual transer of tax dollars to billionaires is more tricky than writing a check, but it amounts to the same. While such righteousness should have been done in private, we know Eli did not do it as the horrid building is under construction so that the children will never have a park.

I hope He does it!

Zell did the LA Times a favor: they were able to shed the windy, uninformed gasbags like Tim Rutten.

The Times also appears to have mercifully stopped running front page "anecdote" stories about the angst of camel owners in distant countries, although it continues to skimp on the city's failed finances, slumping schools and bailing business.

So Mr. Broad, here is why you should buy it and make a mint while doing good:

The LAT is now down to a "lean mean" staff of totally useless people that could not find work anywhere else, like:

(a) Editor Davan Marahaj, who insists that publishing 2 year old photos embarrassing to the US and dangerous to our troops was needed so people could make "informed decisions."

(b) Editor James Newton, who ran a clueless piece the other week insisting that differences between Bernard Parks, the only adult on the Council, and his opponents are ones of "style;" Newton does not grasp that Parks sees the City as a servant of the taxpayers and residents--while others see it as a revenue source for unions. Style? No, substance: but the LAT has no one that knows what substance is. Newton surely does not. Parks ought to be given a public servant award: the Times, however, is clueless .

(c) Other useless people that call for higher taxes, repeal of Prop 13, etc, etc. You can cut and paste their pieces for the next 20 years: no need for live bodies on those topics. And "ancecdote writers" like Sandy Banks can go. The LAT should not be Salon magazine. You can probably afford some real reporters too-ones that can cover an election for governor without devoting 80% of the coverage to a maid. (taxes, energy, and pensions might have been better to report)

(d) Keep George Skelton though: he drives everyone crazy with calls for higher taxes (his priceless gem" the gas tax hasn't been raised since the 80's so its time to raise it). But he alone at the Times, crusty old veteran that he is, understands that the unfunded bullet train is pure folly given other needs.

Please Mr. Broad, buy the Times, give us a paper we can read.